diff mbox

[dpdk-dev] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.

Message ID 1517627510-60932-1-git-send-email-malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com (mailing list archive)
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Ferruh Yigit
Headers

Checks

Context Check Description
ci/checkpatch success coding style OK
ci/Intel-compilation success Compilation OK

Commit Message

Mallesh Koujalagi Feb. 3, 2018, 3:11 a.m. UTC 
  After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%
throughput on single core.

Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
---
 drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

Comments

Ferruh Yigit March 5, 2018, 3:24 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:
> After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%
> throughput on single core.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;
> +
> +	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {
> -		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);
> -		if (!bufs[i])
> -			break;
>  		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,
>  					packet_size);
>  		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size;
> @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  static uint16_t
>  eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>  {
> -	int i;
>  	struct null_queue *h = q;
>  
>  	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)
> -		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
> +	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);

Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?

> +	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>  
> -	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
> -
> -	return i;
> +	return nb_bufs;
>  }
>  
>  static uint16_t
>
Ananyev, Konstantin March 5, 2018, 3:36 p.m. UTC | #2 
> -----Original Message-----

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit

> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM

> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org

> Cc: mtetsuyah@gmail.com

> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.

> 

> On 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:

> > After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%

> > throughput on single core.

> >

> > Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>

> > ---

> >  drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------

> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

> >

> > diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c

> > index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644

> > --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c

> > +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c

> > @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)

> >  		return 0;

> >

> >  	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;

> > +

> > +	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)

> > +		return 0;

> > +

> >  	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {

> > -		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);

> > -		if (!bufs[i])

> > -			break;

> >  		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,

> >  					packet_size);

> >  		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size;

> > @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)

> >  static uint16_t

> >  eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)

> >  {

> > -	int i;

> >  	struct null_queue *h = q;

> >

> >  	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))

> >  		return 0;

> >

> > -	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)

> > -		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);

> > +	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);

> 

> Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?


I don't think it does, plus
rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);
Konstantin

> 

> > +	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);

> >

> > -	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);

> > -

> > -	return i;

> > +	return nb_bufs;

> >  }

> >

> >  static uint16_t

> >
Ferruh Yigit March 7, 2018, 10:57 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 3/5/2018 3:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM
>> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: mtetsuyah@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.
>>
>> On 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:
>>> After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more than ~2%
>>> throughput on single core.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
>>> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>>>  		return 0;
>>>
>>>  	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;
>>> +
>>> +	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)
>>> +		return 0;
>>> +
>>>  	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {
>>> -		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);
>>> -		if (!bufs[i])
>>> -			break;
>>>  		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,
>>>  					packet_size);
>>>  		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size;
>>> @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>>>  static uint16_t
>>>  eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
>>>  {
>>> -	int i;
>>>  	struct null_queue *h = q;
>>>
>>>  	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))
>>>  		return 0;
>>>
>>> -	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)
>>> -		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
>>> +	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);
>>
>> Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?
> 
> I don't think it does, plus
> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);

Perhaps we can just benefit from bulk alloc.

Hi Mallesh,

Does it give any performance improvement if we switch "rte_pktmbuf_alloc()" to
"rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()" but keep free functions untouched?

Thanks,
ferruh


> Konstantin
> 
>>
>>> +	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
>>>
>>> -	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
>>> -
>>> -	return i;
>>> +	return nb_bufs;
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  static uint16_t
>>>
>
Mallesh Koujalagi March 8, 2018, 9:29 p.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Ferruh,

Bulk allocation gives benefit but how much, will check and provide patch.

Best regards
-/Mallesh

-----Original Message-----
From: Yigit, Ferruh 

Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 2:57 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: mtetsuyah@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.

On 3/5/2018 3:36 PM, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> 

> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Ferruh Yigit

>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 3:25 PM

>> To: Koujalagi, MalleshX <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org

>> Cc: mtetsuyah@gmail.com

>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/null: Support bulk alloc and free.

>>

>> On 2/3/2018 3:11 AM, Mallesh Koujalagi wrote:

>>> After bulk allocation and freeing of multiple mbufs increase more 

>>> than ~2% throughput on single core.

>>>

>>> Signed-off-by: Mallesh Koujalagi <malleshx.koujalagi@intel.com>

>>> ---

>>>  drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c | 16 +++++++---------

>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

>>>

>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c 

>>> b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644

>>> --- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c

>>> +++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c

>>> @@ -130,10 +130,11 @@ eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)

>>>  		return 0;

>>>

>>>  	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;

>>> +

>>> +	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)

>>> +		return 0;

>>> +

>>>  	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {

>>> -		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);

>>> -		if (!bufs[i])

>>> -			break;

>>>  		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,

>>>  					packet_size);

>>>  		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size; @@ -149,18 +150,15 @@ 

>>> eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)  

>>> static uint16_t  eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, 

>>> uint16_t nb_bufs)  {

>>> -	int i;

>>>  	struct null_queue *h = q;

>>>

>>>  	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))

>>>  		return 0;

>>>

>>> -	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)

>>> -		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);

>>> +	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);

>>

>> Is it guarantied that all mbufs will be from same mempool?

> 

> I don't think it does, plus

> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb) != rte_mempool_put_bulk(mb->pool, &mb, 1);


Perhaps we can just benefit from bulk alloc.

Hi Mallesh,

Does it give any performance improvement if we switch "rte_pktmbuf_alloc()" to "rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk()" but keep free functions untouched?

Thanks,
ferruh


> Konstantin

> 

>>

>>> +	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);

>>>

>>> -	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);

>>> -

>>> -	return i;

>>> +	return nb_bufs;

>>>  }

>>>

>>>  static uint16_t

>>>

>
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
index 9385ffd..247ede0 100644
--- a/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
+++ b/drivers/net/null/rte_eth_null.c
@@ -130,10 +130,11 @@  eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
 		return 0;
 
 	packet_size = h->internals->packet_size;
+
+	if (rte_pktmbuf_alloc_bulk(h->mb_pool, bufs, nb_bufs) != 0)
+		return 0;
+
 	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++) {
-		bufs[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(h->mb_pool);
-		if (!bufs[i])
-			break;
 		rte_memcpy(rte_pktmbuf_mtod(bufs[i], void *), h->dummy_packet,
 					packet_size);
 		bufs[i]->data_len = (uint16_t)packet_size;
@@ -149,18 +150,15 @@  eth_null_copy_rx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
 static uint16_t
 eth_null_tx(void *q, struct rte_mbuf **bufs, uint16_t nb_bufs)
 {
-	int i;
 	struct null_queue *h = q;
 
 	if ((q == NULL) || (bufs == NULL))
 		return 0;
 
-	for (i = 0; i < nb_bufs; i++)
-		rte_pktmbuf_free(bufs[i]);
+	rte_mempool_put_bulk(bufs[0]->pool, (void **)bufs, nb_bufs);
+	rte_atomic64_add(&h->tx_pkts, nb_bufs);
 
-	rte_atomic64_add(&(h->tx_pkts), i);
-
-	return i;
+	return nb_bufs;
 }
 
 static uint16_t